Re: The challenge of serving *EVERYONE* (was RE: Mozilla blog: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users)

Dictionary and legal definitions nothwithstanding, I think many people
consider copyright infringement to be morally similar to a kind of theft.
The rights owner certainly loses something of real value through the act of
infringement (a potential customer). The very fact of having ones rights
infringed is also a form of loss, even without a monetary component, since
one is deprived of the ability to exercise that right in respect of the
infringer.

But this is very much off-topic and / or within a realm that has been
either comprehensively answered or persistently ignored (depending on your
point of view, it seems) *ad nauseum* on this list. I doubt there is much
to be gained by further discussions.

...Mark




On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Bob Ham <rah@settrans.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 2014-05-18 at 17:20 +0200, David Singer wrote:
>
> > Let’s get this clear.  If you enjoy, without your paying for it,  an
> experience that someone creates, and is only making available to those who
> pay for the experience, that is theft.
>
> This is not true.  Copyright infringement and theft are different
> concepts.  Enjoyment, as far as I know, is not yet a crime anywhere.  If
> it is, the crime certainly isn't theft.
>
> >  No amount of rhetoric about how easy it is, how natural it is, or how
> desirable it is for you, will change that.
>
> This is true.  Copyright infringement and theft can never be considered
> the same thing because theft refers to that act of denying someone
> possession of an object and infringing copyright does not mean denying
> someone possession.  That can never be changed.  The concepts are
> written in law.  You're quite right.
>
> --
> Bob Ham <rah@settrans.net>
>
> for (;;) { ++pancakes; }
>